Destroyed for some,
intact and waiting to be discovered for others, the labyrinth
of Hawara was one of ancient Egypt’s greatest achievements,
on par, if not surpassing, the fame of the pyramids.

Philip Coppens

Is
this the site of a destroyed or lost labyrinth?

For
centuries, stories have been told about the height of the pyramids
and the gaze of the Sphinx. As time progressed, hieroglyphs were
deciphered, tombs and temples discovered, and often surprising
discoveries, like the intact tomb of Tutankhamun, were added to
the list of what was deemed to be Egypt’s unique appeal.
But one “Holy Grail” of Egyptology has always evaded
detection: the labyrinth.
The labyrinth was said to be more impressive than any of these
other monuments, and it is alas a fact that the labyrinth is now
totally destroyed – or still hidden by the desert’s
sands, waiting to be discovered. Erich von Däniken believes
that the labyrinth is “waiting for a modern-day Heinrich
Schliemann.” The question is therefore whether the Holy
Grail of Egyptology will ever be attained, or is forever lost.

It
was the Greek traveller and historian Herodotus who, in Book II
of his “Histories”, described a building complex in
Egypt, “near the place called the City of Crocodiles”,
which he considered to surpass the pyramids in its astonishing
ambition, and which he labelled “a labyrinth”. To
quote him: “Yet the temple at Ephesus and that in Samos
are surely remarkable. The pyramids, too, were greater than words
can tell, and each of them is the equivalent of many of the great
works of the Greeks; but the labyrinth surpasses the pyramids
also.” Many believe that the structure has long been destroyed,
but there is no historical record that suggests or proves this.

Herodotus
gave a detailed description of the labyrinth: “It has twelve
covered courts – six in a row facing north, six south –
the gates of the one range exactly fronting the gates of the other.
Inside, the building is of two storeys and contains three thousand
rooms, of which half are underground, and the other half directly
above them. I was taken through the rooms in the upper storey,
so what I shall say of them is from my own observation, but the
underground ones I can speak of only from report, because the
Egyptians in charge refused to let me see them, as they contain
the tombs of the kings who built the labyrinth, and also the tombs
of the sacred crocodiles. The upper rooms, on the contrary, I
did actually see, and it is hard to believe that they are the
work of men; the baffling and intricate passages from room to
room and from court to court were an endless wonder to me, as
we passed from a courtyard into rooms, from rooms into galleries,
from galleries into more rooms and thence into yet more courtyards.
The roof of every chamber, courtyard, and gallery is, like the
walls, of stone. The walls are covered with carved figures, and
each court is exquisitely built of white marble and surrounded
by a colonnade.”
It is a very detailed description of the internal structure, and
because of this, it is easy for archaeologists to find out if
a structure they’ve unearthed can or cannot be the labyrinth.
And so far, nothing has been uncovered that can be said to correspond
to the labyrinth.

The
pyramid at Hawara

The
first problem is one of location. It is known to have been near
the City of Crocodiles, as well as a “little above Lake
Moeris”, “beside which the labyrinth was built”.
He added that this lake was a wonder in itself: “The circuit
of this lake is a distance of about 420 miles, which is equal
to the whole seaboard of Egypt. The length of the lake is north
and south, and its depth at the deepest is 50 fathoms [300 feet].
That it is handmade and dug, it itself is the best evidence. For
in about the middle of the lake stand two pyramids that top the
water, each one by 50 fathoms [300 feet], and each built as much
again underwater; and on top of each there is a huge stone figure
of a man sitting on a throne. So these pyramids are 100 fathoms
[600 feet] high, and these 100 fathoms are the equivalent of a
600-foot furlong, the fathom measuring 6 feet, or four cubits
(the cubit being six spans). The water in the lake is not fed
with natural springs, for the country here is terribly waterless,
but it enters the lake from the Nile by a channel; and for six
months it flows into the lake, and then, another six, it flows
again into the Nile. During the six months that it flows out,
it brings into the royal treasury each day a silver talent for
the fish from it; and when the water flows in, it brings 20 minas
a day.”
Herodotus is providing a very detailed description, to which he
adds that “at the corner where the labyrinth ends there
is, nearby, a pyramid 240 feet high and engraved with great animals.
The road to this is made underground.” With so much information,
it seems that it should be easy to locate this labyrinth.

Strabo,
who visited Egypt in the first century BC, gave further information
about the labyrinth in his “Geography”, though he
did not mention the underground chambers. He too was impressed
with Lake Moeris, whose “tides” – the inflow
and outflow of water – still functioned, providing further
details that would aide a successful localisation of the labyrinth:
“Near the first entrance to the canal, and on proceeding
thence about 30 or 40 stadia [3.5-4.5 miles], one comes to a flat,
trapezium-shaped place, which has a village, and also a great
palace composed of many palaces – as many in number as there
were Nomes in earlier times; for this is the number of courts,
surrounded by colonnades, continuous with one another, all in
a single row and along one wall, the structure being as it were
a long wall with the courts in front of it; and the roads leading
into them are exactly opposite the wall.”
He continued: “In front of the entrances are crypts, as
it were, which are long and numerous and have winding passages
communicating with one another, so that no stranger can find his
way either into any court or out of it without a guide. But the
marvellous thing is that the roof of each of the chambers consists
of a single stone, and that the breadths of the crypts are likewise
roofed with single slabs of surpassing size, with no intermixture
anywhere of timber or of any other material.”

Strabo
then stated a small detail, which might be very important: “And,
on ascending to the roof, which is at no great height, inasmuch
as the Labyrinth has only one story, one can see a plain of stone,
consisting of stones of that great size; and thence, descending
out into the courts again, one can see that they lie in a row
and are each supported by 27 monolithic pillars; and their walls,
also, are composed of stones that are no smaller in size. At the
end of this building, which occupies more than a stadium, is the
tomb, a quadrangular pyramid, which has sides about 4 plethra
[404 feet] in width and a height equal thereto.”
Herodotus and Strabo thus provided a number of measurable details
that would aid anyone in locating and discovering the labyrinth.
Noting that the lower floor of the labyrinth was underground,
it is clear that over the past two millennia, the upper level
too could easily have disappeared under the sands; and anyone
digging, would thus likely be confronted with a gigantic, flat
roof of the labyrinth – with the possibility that the upper
levels, and even more likely, lower levels, remain intact underneath.

Amenemhet
III

Strabo
also named the builder of the labyrinth: Imandes, which Egyptologists
have identified with Amenemhet III. Strabo added that the “City
of Crocodiles”, Crocodeilonpolis, was then already known
as Arsinoê, and was reached by “sailing along shore
for a distance of one hundred stadia [11.5 miles]”. The
town was built in honour of the crocodile, and a sacred crocodile
was kept, feeding itself in the lake. Strabo reported the animal
was tame to the priests.
A contemporary of Strabo was Diodorus, who wrote about Lake Moeris
and the labyrinth in “Library of History” and provided
a different version as to how the labyrinth came to be built.
He noted that at one point in time, there had not been a head
of government in Egypt for two years, “and the masses betaking
themselves to tumults and the killing of one another, the twelve
most important leaders formed a solemn league among themselves,
and after they had met together for counsel in Memphis and had
drawn up agreements setting forth their mutual goodwill and loyalty
they proclaimed themselves kings. After they had reigned in accordance
with their oaths and promises and had maintained their mutual
concord for a period of fifteen years, they set about to construct
a common tomb for themselves”, which was to become the labyrinth.
He added: “Being full of zeal for this undertaking they
eagerly strove to surpass all preceding rulers in the magnitude
of their structure. For selecting a site at the entrance to Lake
Moeris in Libya they constructed their tomb of the finest stone,
and they made it in form a square but in magnitude a stade in
length [607 feet] on each side; and in the carvings and, indeed,
in all the workmanship they left nothing wherein succeeding rulers
could excel them.”

A
century later, in the first century AD, the Roman author Pliny
described the labyrinth in his “Natural History”,
noting they were “quite the most abnormal achievement on
which man has spent his resources, but by no means a fictitious
one, as might well be supposed.” He nevertheless disagreed
with Herodotus on its builder, stating “the first [labyrinth]
ever to be constructed, was built, according to tradition, 3,600
years ago by King Petesuchis or King Tithoes, although Herodotus
attributes the whole work to the ‘twelve kings’, the
last of whom was Psammetichus.”
He thus gave yet another reason behind its construction, but noted
there was no uniform suggestion: “Various reasons are suggested
for its construction. Demoteles supposes it to have been the palace
of Moteris, and Lyceas the tomb of Moeris, while many writers
state that it was erected as a temple to the Sun-god, and this
is the general belief. Whatever the truth may be, there is no
doubt that Daedalus adopted it as the model for the labyrinth
built by him in Crete, but that he reproduced only a hundredth
part of it containing passages that wind, advance and retreat
in a bewilderingly intricate manner.”
He also noted how well the local population had preserved the
structure and that “the few repairs that had been made were
carried out by one man alone, Chaeremon, the eunuch of King Necthebis
[Nectanebo II, 360 - 343 BC].”
Those are the voices of antiquity, with Herodotus and Strabo known
to have visited the site, whereas doubts remain whether the other
writers were eyewitness to Egypt’s greatest achievement.
Still, from Pliny’s account, it appears that the structure
was still intact in the first century AD.

The
labyrinth, as depicted by Flinders Petrie, based on ancient accounts

It
was the Prussian expedition of Richard Lepsius who claimed –
around 1840 – to have discovered the labyrinth, at Hawara,
which is indeed south of the site of Crocodilopolis and at the
entrance to the depression of the Fayyum oasis. Lepsius thought
that the structures he excavated were parts of the temple of King
Amenemhet III (i.e. the labyrinth), but later research showed
that they had been built in Roman times. However, despite this
setback, from Lepsius’ time onwards, Hawara has remained
the site where the labyrinth is supposed to be – have been.
Hence, in 1888, W.M. Flinders Petrie started to excavate at Hawara,
with his main focus on the pyramid itself. It was of course this
pyramid which was believed to be the one adjacent to the labyrinth.
In 1911, Petrie returned to Hawara to excavate the labyrinth itself.
Petrie’s published account even shows a partial reconstruction
of the complex, but this was mainly based on the classical authors
he consulted, not on any serious archaeological discoveries.
He noted how “on the south of the pyramid lay a wide mass
of chips and fragments of building, which had long generally been
identified with the celebrated labyrinth. Doubts, however, existed,
mainly owing to Lepsius having considered the brick buildings
on the site to have been part of the labyrinth. When I began to
excavate the result was soon plain, that the brick chambers were
built on the top of the ruins of a great stone structure; and
hence they were only the houses of a village, as they had at first
appeared to me to be. But beneath them, and far away over a vast
area, the layers of stone chips were found; and so great was the
mass that it was difficult to persuade visitors that the stratum
was artificial, and not a natural formation.”
In short, Petrie confirmed that Lepsius had not found the labyrinth
and he found a “vast area”, to continue: “Beneath
all these fragments was a uniform smooth bed of cement or plaster,
on which the pavement of the building had been laid: while on
the south side, where the canal had cut across the site, it could
be seen how the chip stratum, about six feet thick, suddenly ceased,
at what had been the limits of the building. No trace of architectural
arrangement could be found, to help in identifying this great
structure with the labyrinth: but the mere extent of it proved
that it was far larger than any temple known in Egypt. All the
temples of Karnak, of Luxor, and a few on the western side of
Thebes, might be placed together within the vast space of these
buildings at Hawara.” He concluded: “We know from
Pliny and others, how for centuries the labyrinth had been a great
quarry for the whole district; and its destruction occupied such
a body of masons, that a small town existed there. All this information,
and the recorded position of it, agrees so closely with what we
can trace, that no doubt can now remain regarding the position
of one of the wonders of Egypt.”
Petrie, in short, argued that he had found the site of the labyrinth,
but that it had been totally destroyed, used as a quarry in ancient
times. And as such, the dream of ever finding the labyrinth of
which so many Greek writers had spoken, crashed. It was no more.
Or was it?

Since
Petrie’s excavations in 1911, no official excavation has
been carried out at the site of the labyrinth, though some shorter
expeditions from the Antiquity Service have dug in the necropolis
of Hawara and recently, a number of ground scans have been carried
out by universities.
Some of those involved with the scans do so because they believe
the labyrinth is still hidden and many refer to Petrie’s
accounts themselves to find hope for their mission. It is clear
that Petrie queried at some point whether he had found the roof
of the labyrinth, but some – not too substantial –
testing suggested there was nothing underneath, and hence he felt
that he had found the floor of the construction. So rather than
concluding it was the ceiling of the structure, he posited it
was the floor, the actual building (i.e. the labyrinth) disappeared
and used as a “great quarry”.
Hence why the Egyptological consensus is that the building has
been used as a quarry since Roman times and that “today
not a single wall remains standing”. It is true that a few
traces of the foundations of walls were discovered. Other bits
of walls and door jambs were found, along with parts of columns,
two granite shrines, and fragments of statues. The question is:
is it enough to identify this site with the labyrinth, or could
it just be any old temple? Knowing the size of the stones used
in the labyrinth, it would be relatively easy to at least identify
some in some of the buildings they were used in since Roman times.
No-one, however, has done so.

Hence,
the dream of the labyrinth lives on in some explorers’ mind,
and some believe that it remains to be discovered – some
hoping they will uncover it. Almost all such seekers nevertheless
accept – as dogma – that it is at Hawara where one
needs to look. Some, however, are not so sure. They argue that
the area does not have the two stone figures that were known to
rise from the lake. Perhaps they are indeed somewhere hidden in
the sand at Hawara, but it is a fact that two colossal statues
of Amenemhet III, found by Petrie, are known to have looked out
over the lake at Biyahmu, 7 miles south of the lake shore and
8 miles north of Hawara. However, there is no pyramid beneath
them. So despite all the details in the various ancient accounts,
we have some evidence that suggests it is at Hawara – because
of the pyramid – while other details suggest it could be
eight miles north of Hawara. And hence the vast area which was
deemed to be the floor of the labyrinth… is not necessarily
so.

The
labyrinth, according to Arnold, in comparison with Djoser's Complex

Irrelevant
of where it is, and its present condition, the question is also
what it was. Though Petrie’s model, based on classical sources,
is still the most cherished, Dieter Arnold has put forward an
alternative suggestion, based upon Djoser’s complex of Saqqara.
Specifically, he placed a large open courtyard in the front section.
Others have seen correspondences between the Hawara complex and
the complex of Netjerikhet at Saqqara. Both complexes are long
rectangular structures oriented north-south. Both have their pyramid
located in the north of the complex. Indeed, though the labyrinth
may have been unique, it is likely that in design, it had to adhere
to certain religious rules and guidelines; its uniqueness lay
in its size.
So, what was the labyrinth? As it was built in stone, we can be
clear that it was either a mortuary complex and/or a temple –
with the two suggestions not mutually exclusive. However, if drawing
parallels with the structures at Saqqara, and especially the Djoser
complex, one has to bear in mind the writings of Jeremy Naydler,
who has convincingly shown a connection between the pyramids and
the Heb Sed festivals. Hence, we should conclude that the labyrinth
was indeed a unique complex – because of its size –
but that in function, purpose and design, it was not unique at
all. Hence, its discovery – if there ever will be one –
will be majestic, but will unlikely lead to major new understandings
of ancient Egypt. It will “merely” once again confirm
to what heights the ancient Egyptians were able to excel. But
then some will argue that continuous iteration of a truth is just
as important as being shown a new path. A labyrinthine path?